Over and over again I’ve written about what President Barack Obama should do. Now the voters have given him a new chance. He could take it and change his policy. I don’t believe he will do that, but let me lay out both what he’s been wrong about and what he should do, just in case Obama is seeking a different approach.

What he did in the first term and will do in the second term: fostered revolutionary Islamism in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.

What he should have done and should do now: what Franklin Rooosevelt did in 1941, Harry Truman did in 1947, and George Bush in 1990 — led an international coalition that will systematically fight against a totalitarian enemy.

What he should have done: supported anti-Islamist and moderate opposition groups.

What he did: pressed Israel to reduce pressure on the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip and helped bring about an Egyptian regime that backed Hamas.

What he should have done: supported a reformed — not overthrown — Egyptian regime and Israel in opposing Hamas and subverting its rule.

What he did: gave support and aid to the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt despite paying lip service to defending women’s rights and Christian rights and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

What he should have done: clearly conditioned aid on Egypt to protecting women, Christians, and moderates; taken a strong stand on the regime’s permitting cross-border attacks on Israel and gutting the peace treaty. The Obama administration has, and will have, no credibility with an anti-American extremist and anti-Semitic Egyptian government.

What he did: celebrated the Turkish regime as a great example of democracy and moderate Islam. He also did nothing as that regime went into a non-shooting war with Israel, backing Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran; and he rewarded Ankara with special treatment, including letting it organize the Syrian opposition.

What he should have done: without provoking a conflict, used U.S. leverage to press Turkey’s rulers to change their policies. He should have offered no rewards without their help in promoting U.S. goals. He should have been suspicious of the regime’s intentions and noted its suppression of democracy within Turkey.

What he did: accepted the Lebanese government dominated by Hizballah and backed by Iran and Syria.

What he should have done: backed the moderate Lebanese opposition that opposed the regime in order to combat the Iran-Syria bloc.

What he did: backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria’s civil war and did not interfere with weapons going to Salafist groups as long as they were not al-Qaeda affiliates.

What he should have done: supported moderates and anti-Islamists in Syria against both the Islamists and the regime.

What he did: acted as if all of Libya’s problems had been solved; tried to please the regime and show his niceness by not intervening to save Americans in the September 11 Benghazi attacks.

What he should have done: known that the U.S. is involved in an ongoing conflict in Libya and there will be more attacks in future.

What he did: nothing.

What he should have done: investigated the Benghazi incident seriously and honestly (his choice for chief investigator, former State Department hack Thomas Pickering, is an opportunist who will write whatever the White House wants), got those responsible, and made sure that nothing like that ever happens again. Perhaps an apology to the families of those killed would be in order.

What he did: pushed the “peace process” for two years, though then he did get the idea it wouldn’t work. He also opposed, albeit starting far too late, Palestinian Authority (PA) unilateral statehood bids. But will he continue that revised policy into a second term?

What he should have done: realized the peace process isn’t going anywhere, and understood that’s because of PA intransigence and the Hamas challenge that is radicalizing even further Palestinian policy. When the PA subverts U.S. policies, he needs to be willing to pressure and criticize it.

What he did: said he supported the rights of Christians and women from (Islamist) repression. But he never did anything about it. Zero. He cozied up to Syria and Iran at the very moment they were violently suppressing dissidents at home and opponents abroad.

What he should have done: genuinely worked to protect the rights of Christians and women as well as the lives of moderates by using leverage.

What he did: said that al-Qaeda was defeated.

What he should have done: understood that al-Qaeda is not finished by any means. And its partner the Taliban is still going strong. But this issue made less difference, since U.S. policy did fight al-Qaeda anyway.

What he did: continued the withdrawal from Afghanistan and tried to cut a deal with the Taliban.

What he should have done: continued the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but followed a realpolitik policy and set into place a strong set of patron-client relationships with those willing — albeit for their own interests — to keep the Taliban from taking power. The problem is that once U.S. forces are out, the regime is likely to collapse and possibly give way to a revolutionary Islamist, anti-American government.

What he did: although the U.S. government conducted drone strikes and the killing of Osama bin Laden, unilaterally, it generally continued to pour money into Pakistan despite its lack of cooperation, activity as a major sponsor of terrorism, and institutionalized anti-Americanism, persecution of Christians, and support of radical Islamist ideology.

What he should have done: moved away from Pakistan and rebuilt relations with India.

What he did: forbade an honest discussion of the enemy and threat in the U.S. military; minimized or denied that attacks like the one at Fort Hood were terrorist attacks.

What he should have done: let the U.S. military educate its people about the actual threat instead of forcing them to pretend otherwise.

What he did: put tough international sanctions on Iran and kept the possibility of an attack against nuclear institutions on the table. He will try to make a deal with Tehran by letting it do limited enrichment and drop sanctions in exchange for promises not to develop nuclear weapons. The choice is up to Tehran as to whether to negotiate a deal or simply use talks as one more stalling technique while continuing to hurry toward getting deliverable nuclear weapons. When Iran does get nuclear weapons he won’t do anything; this includes not supporting an Israeli attack.

What he should do: If he wants to negotiate, he should first gain credibility in Tehran by being tough on Iranian interests everywhere in the region — he’s doing this in Syria. He should bargain toughly and not do anything to get a deal. When Iran does get nuclear weapons, he should put in place a really tough containment system that would counter Iran’s subversion and terrorism, give strong backing to the internal opposition, and squeeze Iran to the maximum extent. If an honest assessment shows an Iranian plan to attack Israel or if Tehran seems likely to give nuclear bombs to terrorists, the U.S. government should support an Israeli attack. By not being credible, Obama makes it more likely that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons; that outcome will likely lead to war.

Shall we go on? Well, the U.S. government will go on doing these things for the next four years.

Click here to view the 41 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

41 Comments, 20 Threads

Rubin has written a contrapunctual article. “Did not do” vs “Should do” with the “not”, alas, winning out as a crescendo. If I, from a given distance from a cliff, make 3 steps forward and two backwards, eventurally I will fall off. How many more “Did not do” steps, and I am extrapolating here, before I step over the cliff (say, Israel is backed into serious military action against Iran, but without US support)? Certainly the errors being made by Obama will be more than a series of steps that approach the cliff but do not ever reach it. No one, not even Rubin, is a prophet of the future. But as I look at the extrapolation game, I see Israel, America and even Europe approaching a point of no return to our disfavor. Rubin himself has written in one article that Obama is “pro-Islamist” (and now I can brag to myself that my own belief is certified by an expert). If the “Did not do” is a function of Obama being “pro-Islamist”, then this game of 3+/2- steps that I am now playing points me in a direction that forces the conclusion that Islamist-Islam will be appeased. A parallel to the Chaimberlain pandering to the Nazis before WW II suggests itself with one difference. Imagine would have happened had Chairberlain been “pro-Nazi” and continued on his “Did not do” errors. The war might have had a different conclusion. May I extrapolate on Rubin’s analysis and sense a sort of repetition of history whereby this time the “bad guys” will have the edge and constitute the cliff over which we fall?

While Barry offers rational advice, he is talking to dead wood. The Islamist-in-Chief does not want a pro western outcome.

It must be understood, and hopefully before it is too late – Barack HUSSEIN Obama is Allah-bent on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia, and its Al Qaeda offshoots. There is no way around this. EVERY move he executed has resulted in said outcomes. Now, to believe this is not the case, is also to believe that a whore went into her profession, expecting to come out a virgin. Same difference.

There are only two possible reasons that Obama or any one else would pursue the Middle East and energy policies that Obama has been pursuing. The first is that he is a total fool and is surrounded by advisers that are equally foolhardy. While Obama has clearly shown himself to be a poorly educated individual of less than impressive intellect, it is very difficult to believe that he is so stupid as to believe that the policies he has advocated would produce results favorable to Western and American interests.

The other option is that he knows full well that the agenda he is pushing is advantageous to Islamic, anti-American and anti-Western interests and detrimental to America and the non-Muslim world. This is the only one that makes sense.

Accepting this as true is the beginning of our wisdom. It allows us to be honest with ourselves and begin to devise a plan to counter damage that has already been done and is building momentum.

The probability of Obama changing course and trying to promote policy that would benefit the interests of America and freedom is near zero.

The re-election of Obama indicates that we have an electorate that is more concerned with its short term selfish interest than with the larger concern of Western values.

I said selfish interest rather than self-interest because self-interest implies that an individual might make immediate sacrifices for future gain.

More important that what Obama will or will not do during the next four years is what the republicans will do to move a majority of the nation in a positive way leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

If not a literal “mole” in the Cold War sense, Obama is certainly a thinly disguised Muslim sympathizer. There are degrees of this, of course. They [our resident Muslims] become more and less apparent with their confidence. Forget the “moderates”….how does one stay just a little bit pregnant”?

In my eighth decade right now, I see distinct similarities to the classic Soviet tactics and strategy with the current Muslim infiltration, penetration, [new mosques popping up here and there, planning for their "growth"], Muslim Students’ Association chapters in colleges/universities…smiling ecumenism, if you will. Observe their knee-jerk applied Lawfare, “racist” charges tossed about at perceived slights…on and on. They’re very, very alert to all possibilities for encroachment.

We, on the other hand, are simply being naifs in a cloud of ostrich feathers fluttering all around us, blown about by a compliant Media.

Obama’s crafty enough to keep a low profile, but we shouldn’t believe a word that slithers from his mouth.

With a Democrat controlled Senate, he knows he’s nearly immune to Impeachment proceedings.

When I saw to my real dismay with raised eyebrows that Obama had so many Electoral College votes ahead of Romney,i thought that my country as I [you and me] knew formerly knew it is “gone with the wind” if you’ll forgive an outdated phrase.

Obama has us on the road to applied socialism, there can be no doubt about that.

Yes, I believe he’s a Muslim sympathizer and very dangerous. We’ve been snookered again, those cretins voting for Obama are totally illiterate internationally, economically and financially, and have a ho-hum “attitude” to everything that doesn’t entail an “entitlement” of some sort to be eagerly grasped.

Sadly disgusting, and we’ve permitted this National disaster to be wrought upon ourselves….for the second time.

This book is 65 years old and is as true today as it was in the upheaval at the end of WWII. Europe was in tatters, land grabs were available for the walking in and declaring ones authority. You have all been around long enough to recall the posturing and posing of the newly minted ‘Untied Nations’, Churchill’s Iron Curtain, Castro Cuba’s missile ploy, Domino puppets in Southeast Asia, De-colonialization of the Third (and second and a half) world.

It was a time when one man’s Terrorist was another man’s Freedom Fighter and they switched positions at the drop of a hat. Refugees fled from country to country, some bona fide, some deep plants, whose papers ‘got lost’ in the previous terror. There was little that was truely as presented as face value.
The one thing most of the covert operations followed exactly was the recently published Road to Serfdom which was the detailed observations of Mr Hayek. The most pointed of these observations was the success of putting ‘sleepers’ into the fabric of the target society, in the media, education, labor organizations, politics, often under the guise of civil servant workers. These cells eventually would be strategicly activated to set predetermined plans in motion.

These people DO NOT play under Queensbury Rules and are the advance units who hold the door open for the rest of the horde. I am in Charlies age bracket and he will probably agree that each ‘new’ history analysis slants or spins actual events to an approved politically correct ‘Truth’.

Thanks for the memories!…I was an Econ. major in the early 1950′s and Hayek was at the top of our required reading list.

Our Major Professor, Dr E.M. Kayden, was a very formidable looking, short statured man with a large rounded head, coal black hair, thick-lensed eyeglasses in front of tiny small dark eyes, a terrifying thick Russian accent, and had been smuggled out of the emerging Soviet Union by his parents as a very small child when they escaped. Stepped right out of a 19th Cent. Russian Great Novel into our chilly classroom. Unforgettable.

We were slightly unnerved during his lectures because we were never quit sure of just what, exactly, he was saying.

We loved him…..quivered when he pointed to one of us for a “terse answer, please”. He meant absolutely “NO B.S.”

That World is now literally Gone With The Wind with this chameleon Obama actually in a second tern in our White House.

And that’s just Mideast policy. I could come up with a list three times as long on energy alone (which, btw, relates to Mideast policy, since all this happy green energy horseshit just makes sure that we keep importing lots of oil from countries other than Canada).

Obama does whatever Axelrod tells him to do. No matter what these guys do they will get away with it simply because nobody cares.Mass media provides 100% of support, and the Republicans in Congress are to-o-o-o-o polite and shy to say anything negative about the guys.

Obama recieved a significant percentage of both the Hispanic vote and the Asian (south, east, and west (arab)) vote. It is a common fantasy here on PJmedia that Latinos and Asian are divided against African Americans. Stop dreaming. You wish this were true but its not. Asians are supposed to be bitter about Affirmative Action policies that favor Blacks right? So why aren’t they running towards you right-wing republicans? Latinos favor pro-business policies and hate the Democratic welfare state right? So why did Romney get soooo little of the vote. Sit and think about this. Cry and weep if you have to. Your delusions about America is melting right in front of you. People of Color and Progressives are unified. You will have to reckon with us. heck, I guess that’s what your doing right now. Have a nice day. Obama 2013.

No, what the Republicans are dealing with right now is the fact that they chose a pathetic candidate who was supposed to be ‘electable’, who ran a terrible campaign, who stands for nothing and, in core philosophy is nothing but a diet coke version of Obama. Which of course, is why Romney lost.

Or rather, the Republicans seem NOT to be dealing with it. This is still the denial phase. Too many are convinced that Romney’s awesomeness was just too… awesome… to allow him to fail. It must be fraud, or the American people not appreciating his awesomeness or something.

You know, the crying, weeping, whining, moaning and teeth knashing from the loonies on this website has been sweet music to my ears for the past two days, but like all sweet treats, I’m starting to get a bellyache and toothache. PJMedia, you are done. You are irrelevant. But worst of all, you are boring! Your demographic is being extinguished (thank God), and the only reason to even pop in here once a week is to read Wretchard- the only one among you yahoos who makes any sense.So please, turn out the lights already. Good night.

You, with your repetitive left wing drivel, are the boring one. One can get the democrat talking points from any number of pseudo journalistic outlets of the so called mainstream media. What P J Media offers is diversity, something that is intolerable to the proponents of “liberal diversity”, which is what we have when people of every race and color stop thinking and regurgitate what they have been told by the heroes they worship.

Wretchard, one my favorites as well, is certainly no Obamanot fruit cake like you apparently get most of your information from. I think you keep mentioning Wretchard as someone you like simply because he has a Spanish last name.

For most of the posters on PJ media it is the ideas that are important not the prejudices.

“Should have done” implies wishful thinking. “Wishful thinking” almost always deludes a reasonable projection of success. A real president would have . . .
Let us try the Pied Piper analogy. The Piper promised to rid the place of the rats. He feigned efforts to that end. His ultimate purpose was to steal all of the children. He should have done, but did otherwise. I promise to be transparent so that you will look no further into my agenda.

What next to expect from the “Unified Progressives”? I know what.
Collective farms for the loyal, and extermination camps for those who disagree.
That’s all that they can accomplish practically according to their beliefs.

Walt. The socialist progressives have long progressed beyond the historic definition of socialism and collectivism. Lets see — they call it democratic socialism now just like the European model and the more radical model of China’s transition. You can privately own and operate whatever you want so long as you pay the government their dues to provide a somewhat similar standard of living for those who have a bit less than you do or those who choose not to work hard and produce for the government. Good Lord we’re all equals — right?

Ironically, it was the republicans who coined the “trickle down” jargon for which fits nicely into democratic socialist vision for the nation. If you choose to work, work hard to give more and more of your income to the government so it (the government) can trickle it down to those who are a bit less equal than yourself.

Imagine that model on a global scale! Thats what our nation is heading towards and have tried to do with nation building around the world for many decades now. Make everybody more equal at the expense of a few and fewer.

If you wouldn’t mind, what is your reference source that it was the democrats who first coined the term trickle-down? According to Merriam the term was first known to be used in 1944 and doesn’t elaborate. All indications may well be that it was related to an economic theory. The republicans especially, during the 80s and since, have fully endorsed a trickle-down economic theory.

Mr. Romney in the most recent campaign brought forth the term trickle-down government to contrast the differences of a trickle-down economy vs trickle-down government.

“trickledown was coined by the democrats and used to label republican pro business agenda.”

The origin of “trickledown” may not be really clear. What is clear is that the democrats co-opted the term and attempted to use it to ridicule Ronald Reagan’s economic policies; policies which worked pretty well.

Lost in all this is the fact that for many years were have been speeding toward and economic cliff without unsustainable spending. We can’t afford the size of the military we have, we can’t afford the empire we have, we can’t afford the handouts we’ve promised.

Like it or not, economic reality is going to set it. All these ideas of middle east intervention require money, or someone stupid enough to lend it to us. For now it’s all being financed by the Fed through devaluing the currency through bond purchases. This won’t last.

When it comes crashing in, intervening in the Middle East will be as feasible as going back to the moon.

Romney or Obama, it didn’t matter. The economic situation is too far gone to reverse.

The economy was set on an irreversible path in 1973 when the petro dollar system was installed by President Nixon / Kissinger and company. There is no way out of the mess because the system itself is destined to fail under its own weight, like building a house on sand instead of granite.

Karl Rove and Grover Norquist led the Gop over a cliff, Rove will have some very uncomfortable meetings with Koch brothers and well deserved, he lived in a fantasy world flying in the face of numbers. Norquist will lose his ability to threaten and extort GOP congress and senate, thankfully.

Maybe now the GOP can stop paying for a fantasy and start living in the real world.

I would agree with your first comment of disposing of the backed dollar. Beyond that however, I would have to say the other single most destructive thing to happen was during the 90s when the government facilitated at full speed ahead, the consolidation of manufacturing and financial industries and the moving of manufacturing off shore transitioning to a service based economy. Sustainable manufacturing is the life-line to any nations economy and survivability. One has to have an appropriate environment to sustain a competitive manufacturing economy and we no longer have that environment for manufacturing to return home too. The financial markets have shown since 2007 that we don’t need low employment to sustain the remaining economies in the USA today. Our nation has operated with a bloated labor force since the 90s and government interventions has made it unsustainable to employ a bloated labor force for the remaining economies. Continued out of control government spending and national debt, increased taxes and programs like ObamaCare in an already supressed economy is suicide.

The identification of the core problems are not complex nor are the solutions but the American people would rather commit national sucicide than bite the bullet and suffer their own consequences of corruption and greed — not to mention their demand for government subsistance through a million special interest handouts across all industries, state and local governments and millions of individuals.

Perhaps Obambi could make amends by conducting the Benghazi investigation in person. As in go to Benghazi in person. Of course since it is so safe there he wouldn’t need his Secret Service detail to tag along, they would just get in the way.

The Republicans offered the electorate competence, the Democrats offered the electorate candy. I wonder if the electorate will learn by 2016? I wonder how many dead it will take and how much poverty? And will enough care?

The GOP lost for several reasons: 1) the tea party hijacked the primaries thus forcing the GOP to run with a slew of candidates that could never hope to convince an “independant” to vote for them 2) The MSM played up every dumb ass wing nut statement coming from anyone loosely affiliated with the GOP while minimizing the utter failure and blowback of Libya/Syria/Iran policy, Obamacare, china policy, Russia Reset, Fast and Furious and 3) Most republicans do not understand that most Americans do not want to discuss abortion anymore. Most Americans feel that it should be legal but not promoted. The only reason the bullsh-t about a GOP ” war on women” got any traction was the preoccupation of a few GOP spokespeople, who damn well should have known their comments would have been taken out of context. The only hope is that somewhere there are responsible leaders who now understand that if there is to be some hope of stability and order, they can’t rely on Washington and will have to form other coalitions.

I do not care any longer that the election was lost, nor do I care what Obumma
plans are for us. I am too old to join any kind of underground resistance,or right wing hit squad. My service to my country long past and now considered by me, for naught. At this point, all I can do is remove my savings from the bank,
and invest in tangible goods, while refusing to engage in purchasing anything of value. I will become an well armed hoarder of basic commodities needed for survival, and resistance to what is coming down for all of us in the immediate future. The American patriot, has now become the American urban terrorist.

On behalf of everyone in the United States who supports Israel, I must say that I am terribly sorry. Hussein Obama and his fluffers in the Media have won a great victory, and the Jewish People have suffered a great loss. We can cry, but tears avail us of nothing. We need to figure out what to do.

I do not think that Israel has the military capability to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear weapons program more than temporarily. To do a permanent job would require forces that only the United states now posses, which Hussein Obama would never consent to be deployed against the ummah of his birth.

The question before the State of Israel is how should it respond to the certain knowledge that it is alone in a hostile world, abandoned by its last ally.

First, Israel should not give up. It is surrounded by hostile Arab people, but as much as they hate Jews, they hate and fear each other even more. Israel must play on their divisions and not hesitate to arm both sides when they attack each other.

Second, The question of what to do about Jews who claim an exemption from military service because of their studies has been answered. Any Jew who cannot participate in the defense of Israel is a danger to the community. Every Jew in Israel should undergo military training immediately. Anyone who refuses should be escorted to the nearest border and kicked out. No exemptions should be given and no compromises should be made.

Third, Israel should use every effort to pursue technical means of missile defense. But, even the best defense will not be one hundred percent effective. Therefore Israel should also make civil defense an immediate priority.

Every residence and commercial building in Israel should be equipped with underground shelters with 2 weeks of food and water. A nuclear attack is a devastating thing to absorb, but most of the people who will die in one, will die from radiation and fires that are the secondary effects of the blast. Most of those deaths can be prevented. Further, the Iranians are not so capable that they can be sure of hitting the center of their targets. An Iranian missile aimed at Tel Aviv has a decent chance of blowing up in the sea, but the clouds of radioactive steam that it would create could be deadly, but not to a protected population.

The Swiss created such a system during the Cold War: “La Place de la Concorde Suisse” by John McPhee:

Israel’s military is based on the Swiss example. Israel’s civil defense, should be based on the Swiss example also.

It would have the additional effect of blunting missile attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Fourth, Israel needs make it clear to the Iranians that the Palestinians are hostages to their good behavior. This means that there will be no “peace process” as long as the Iranians pursue nuclear weapons. Israel would not intentionally harm Palestinians, but if there is a crisis in Israel caused by Iranian attack, all resources will devoted to saving Jewish lives. Damage to water and electricity supplies will hurt Palestinians deeply. Finally, that Mosque has a mortgage on it. Any Iranian missile that lands on Israel will damage it.